Penalty Points

Sleipnir

But nominating someone else isn't "proof" that that person was driving. How can it be? It certainly isn't proof under the act.

quarryman

quarryman wrote:

Question:

I was on the M7 last week and as I passed a flyover entrance to the motorway on my left I spotted a cop with his speed gun pointing it at passing cars. I was below 120kph when i passed but if i hadn't been does he (or his cop buddy) not have to stop me to inform me of my speed etc? Or could i just expect a letter in the post?

anyone know the above?

Seth Brundle

More than likiely either he or his buddy would have to pull you over

MrPudding

They did a section about this on Fith Gear a couple of years ago. It was dealing with the myths of getting off with penalty points.

Obviously it dealt with the UK but it is not unreasonable to assume the Gardai might do something similar here. Actually who am I kidding? This would require police work. Sorry.

I post it anyway. If someone fills in the form saying someone outside the state was driving it will most likely, but not always, be let go the first time. However, if it becomes a habit they will chase up the details. The police were citing some examples where they had the police in Australia trying to track someone down who was supposedly driving a speeding car in the UK.

They will chase it up and if there is no evidence to show that person was driving the resigtered owner will have the points applied to them.

There were also some test cases in Scotland. People refused to fill in the form as they believed it was a derogation of their right to remain silent. These cases were overturned.

I am not sure exactly what the state of play is here. I got a speeding notice but it was actually my GF that was driving. I filled in her details and never heard anything more about it. She got the notice 2 weeks later and accepted it. It would be interesting to know what would have happened if she had of returned it saying it was not her driving.

This might be one for the legal discussion board?

MrP

daymobrew

antodeco wrote:

I accept that I was driving over the speed limit

Why not accept your punishment of 2 points?

Why not let the Garda get on with their job and not have wasting a morning in a court room?
The right turn from Clontarf Road onto Alfie Byrne Road has a filter light that loads of cars break. I used to frequently report this to Clontarf Garda Station. They told me that they didn't have the Gardai to patrol this junction because they were heading into court at that hour (~9am).

Sleipnir wrote:

the Garda has to prove that the person was speeding but they can't do that as they only have a photo of the reg.

Mine, from the Gatso on Navan Road near Skreen Road, was a photo of the whole car, including reg and me.

Sleipnir wrote:

It is quite legal to nominate another person as driving at the time of the offence. There's a section on the form for it.

But it is not 'quite legal' to use that section to lie.

I will admit that the Gatso van location near Heuston is a lazy location (as is the Navan Road one where I was caught ). They should be elsewhere getting the real dangerous drivers.

Sleipnir

quarryman wrote:

anyone know the above?

Not if they have a photograph of your reg. You would get it through the post.

FX Meister

Sleipnir wrote:

The onus of proof lies with the gardai, not me. They have to prove that I was driving the car, which they can't, hence the option to nominate another driver.
Or to put it another way, I don't have to prove that I was not driving the car; the Gardai have to prove that I was.

Sorry but you are wrong. You have to prove you were not driving the car. And that's a fact.

Sleipnir

FX Meister wrote:

Sorry but you are wrong. You have to prove you were not driving the car. And that's a fact.

Well CHRIST!
There we were debating the law as laid out in the Road Traffic Act 1961 regarding gatso cameras, debating different interpretations of it and the laws of jurisdiction and then....you fly out like a superhero and in one fell swoop and dash my arguments to RUINS!

"And that's a fact"

JUDGE: "Well counsel, I've heard your arguments and the one that convinced me of the defendant's innocence was your insightful "and that's a fact" point. I can see no alternative but to throw this case out"

dahamsta

He should really have said it like this:

FACT!

The judge is never convinced otherwise.

FX Meister

Sleipnir wrote:

Well CHRIST!
There we were debating the law as laid out in the Road Traffic Act 1961 regarding gatso cameras, debating different interpretations of it and the laws of jurisdiction and then....you fly out like a superhero and in one fell swoop and dash my arguments to RUINS!



JUDGE: "Well counsel, I've heard your arguments and the one that convinced me of the defendant's innocence was your insightful "and that's a fact" point. I can see no alternative but to throw this case out"

I know. Don't feel bad for yourself. It's not your fault.

Our man in Havana

It will make for some very interesting cases if someone had the balls to challenge the current system of guilty till you prove yourself innocent.

I for one would like to see a case where naming another person is thrashed out. IE where you name someone is that sufficent to discharge your obligations under sect 107.